The Detroit News, who worshipped at the altar of Dick DeVos last year, finally
broke the irony meter in my head with the title on this morning's editorial-
"Granholm's tax 'investment' more like pyramid scheme"
HAHAHAHA! You guys are killin' me here.
As far as their argument goes, it is the same old song they always sing.
She claims her tax hikes will wipe out the state's deficit and allow Michigan to create new initiatives to improve its attractiveness. But the more likely outcome is that the state's economic decline will accelerate and tax revenues fall.
Granholm's risky budget is notable for the "investments" it doesn't make.
No proof that the statement of economic decline and falling revenue is true. They never, ever make the case when they say things like this. And somehow "investments" means "cuts". Neat trick.
They go on to attack the teachers union once again. They really have it bad for teachers.
Granholm says other studies indicate no money would be saved by breaking the teacher union stranglehold on health insurance. But what's the down side of finding out? The governor would rather reach into the pockets of Michigan's struggling families than stand up to the special interests that got her elected.
What is the downside? We lose good people from the profession that is key to our future success. In 2001 it was reported that 50% of new teachers leave the profession after five years, citing low salaries and increased responsibilities. Cut their benefits some more, make the choice to teach less appealing, and the best and the brightest turn away at a time when we need them the most.
And as far as "standing up to special interests", I think the new Pundit Tax applies here. It is a clichéd talking point. Everyone is a special interest to someone. The News never stands up to big business "special interests", do they? Of course not.
Next?
Her budget plan also doesn't invest in innovation.
21st Century Jobs Fund, a big investment in innovation and new enterprise. Did they forget about that? Apparently.
State government should be run like a business, according to the News. Where have I heard that before?
But the automakers have also slashed their operations again and again. They've exited certain businesses, sold off subsidiaries and farmed out work to contractors. Their structures look vastly different today than they did five years ago. The state's operation looks basically the same.
"I have cut more from state spending than any governor before me." 3 billion. 4 billion in deficits eliminated. Whatever the number is now. I would say that is "slashing operations". The News is making a Mackinac pitch for privatization here.
The News also wants to lay off more state employees.
One thing the governor certainly didn't invest in is pink slips. The governor's budget does not significantly reduce the size of the state payroll. She boasts that the work force is smaller than when she took office, but she never addresses whether every person drawing a state paycheck is essential to the well-being of the state. Again, this is what the automakers have done and continue to do.
Because downsizing has been such a boon to this state, hasn't it? We need more unemployed people.
They throw a pat on the head for education and training.
We applaud Granholm's emphasis on education and retraining workers, but those new initiatives must be paid for by spending cuts in other areas. If the governor sticks to her promise this time to pressure school districts and municipalities to merge services and operations, it will benefit taxpayers.
And those cuts are? Tell us. Once again, we hear the word "cuts" with no specifics.
They close with yet another big blanket statement.
Were she willing to do the hard work of bringing fundamental reform to every branch of state government, she could find the savings needed to bring Michigan through this economic crisis.
And they never explain exactly what that "reform" is, unless you want to go back to the "cut taxes, downsize and sell it all" mentality.
Can government operations be streamlined some more? Probably, and savings in that area should be encouraged, but that is not something you can snap your fingers and have happen overnight. You cannot "downsize" the children, the sick, the elderly, as much as the News would like to do that.
Bob Emerson put it right back to the naysayers yesterday.
Senate Appropriations Chairman Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks, asked state budget director Bob Emerson during his budget presentation to the House and Senate Appropriations committees what would happen if the new sales tax isn't approved.
Emerson said it wouldn't be prudent to turn down the sales tax plan. But he added that he would work with Republican lawmakers to eliminate more spending in the budget if they didn't agree to the tax.
"We'll be looking to your sage advice ... for Plan B, because we don't have one right now," Emerson said.
Show us where to cut. Show us what to reform. Until then, the naysayers are just singing "Yesterday Once More" without providing any real or new common sense solutions.
But feel free to use titles like "pyramid scheme", because we need the laughs.